Any cities/towns NOT doing the park ban?

[Fallguy]

Read ©(1) in the paste:

That applies to state and local entities. They can certainly vote to opt out now, but they could not have before now, because it was illegal everywhere. So as of now until 1 September, the signs should be there. Even thereafter, they should remain up for those who do not have HCPs...which is my whole point about the confusion thing.

Should versus shall...come on. Of course should means shall in this discussion.

As for (e)(1) being just for state parks, not so, because "or instrumentality thereof" means counties and cities.

To avoid any confusion, a small sign under the mandated one saying "HCP Carry Banned" should be mandated on local parks as well. They should at least be required to pay for denying a constitutional right.

©(3) specifically says the local government could vote not to post the sign in ©(1)...you do see that, right? (In no way am I or was I saying they could opt out of allowing or disallowing carry before) So since state law said it was illegal to carry in a park you couldn't carry there....and a local government did not have to post a sign if the exempted themselves from having to post as allowed in ©(3). It's just about that simple.

I believe the "or instrumentality thereof" means those places maybe not operated directly by the state, but by others for the state or maybe even the reverse. Either way, if it would have meant counties and cities it would have said any "political sub-division" thereof.

I do agree it would have been better to have required signs to be changed, but it would have created a fiscal note and that is what has killed the bill in the past.

I don't think this is as a big of a problem for state parks though. One because I have never seen a "proper" 39-17-1311 sign at a state park. Secondly we know all state parks are legal and are not "opting out". The only minor problem is those from out of state that may not know the sign(s) do not apply to permitted carriers. However I hope over time those signs will be changed.

On local parks if they allow carry but happen to have signs up now, they can remove them (even if (e)(1) applies to them, which I don't think it does) The only sign that will legally prohibit carry in local parks after Sept 1 is a 39-17-1311©(1) sign. So if you see that sign I would not carry.

If a local park has 39-17-1311©(1) signs in place now.....

....and opt out of allowing carry, no harm no foul really.

....if they do not opt out and allow carry. They should remove their signs IMO. But part of me thinks if they went to the trouble to post proper 39-17-1311©(1) signs already (because as I said before, all the places I've seen haven't) I doubt they are going to allow carry.

[Falcon1]

Fallguy, perhaps we're talking from two ends toward the same thing. Time will tell. My head hurts.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy, perhaps we're talking from two ends toward the same thing. Time will tell. My head hurts.

You very possibly are correct.... I do see it here a lot. One person saying something is black another saying it is non-white...lol.

As you said hopefully we'll see soon enough.

.....and thanks for helping to show how members of this board can have a good debate/discussion and not make it personal.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Fallguy

[Falcon1]

.....and thanks for helping to show how members of this board can have a good debate/discussion and not make it personal.

Absolutely!

[cybernorris]

Instrumentality: a subsidiary organ of government created for a special purpose; "are the judicial instrumentalities of local governments adequate?"; "he studied the French instrumentalities for law enforcement"

Thus the phrase "instrumentality thereof" in (3)(d) is a subsidiary of the city or county government, such as the "committee appointed by the body to regulate public recreational property" specified a few lines earlier.

However in (3)(e)(1), that would be a subsidiary of the state... and my guess is this could potentially mean a city or county government that was acting at the direction of the state in the specific purpose. An example in this instance could possibly be the City of Tullahoma, who jointly operates the Short Springs Nature Area. I'd need a lawyer or two dozen to determine that.

But the purpose of (3)(e)(1) is in posting signage, not in creating exemptions.

Edited July 8, 2009 by cybernorris

[Fallguy]

Instrumentality: a subsidiary organ of government created for a special purpose; "are the judicial instrumentalities of local governments adequate?"; "he studied the French instrumentalities for law enforcement"

Sort of like the Department of Environment and Conservation responsible for state parks in TN operates instrumentally for the government of the state of TN, right?

[cybernorris]

Slightly, but not really, off topic... what is the status of HCP on TVA land?

[GKar]

Slightly, but not really, off topic... what is the status of HCP on TVA land?

I had this conversation just a few days ago with a TVA police officer in Knoxville (who said he also teaches handgun courses locally). He indicated that TVA land is not subject to either state law nor those Federal deprtments affected by the Coburn amendment, so they will continue to operate at their current status. All areas where carry is prohibited are clearly marked "No firearms" - according to him, that mainly consists of reservations around dams, power production and recreational facilities. Other areas (he called them "access" areas??) are normally not posted, and carry is allowed there.

Frankly, I dont have a friggin' clue, and I told him that. He laughed, agreed, and then said that the safest thing was to contact TVA enforcement in the location you are interested and ask them.

[cybernorris]

I had this conversation just a few days ago with a TVA police officer in Knoxville (who said he also teaches handgun courses locally). He indicated that TVA land is not subject to either state law nor those Federal deprtments affected by the Coburn amendment, so they will continue to operate at their current status. All areas where carry is prohibited are clearly marked "No firearms" - according to him, that mainly consists of reservations around dams, power production and recreational facilities. Other areas (he called them "access" areas??) are normally not posted, and carry is allowed there.

Frankly, I dont have a friggin' clue, and I told him that. He laughed, agreed, and then said that the safest thing was to contact TVA enforcement in the location you are interested and ask them.

Thanks! In the case of Short Springs, I believe it's just right-of-way property for transmission lines.